Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Shlomo writes well in this article and it is an interesting read. I wonder why, and the question is directed to the writer, why does Israeli foreign policy not adopt this type of "humility and cultural sensitivity, using smart diplomacy instead of "counter-terrorist strikes" in relation to Gaza - Lebanon & Palestine ?
Surely the current military offensive leaves a sour and very bad taste with Israeli neighbours and the continued military operations are strategic offensive and not defensive moves. Shlomo, can you please explain ?

Mr. Ben-Ami, if hope is bound to be born in the Middle East, then "birth pains" are worth all the while. The Arab Spring was conceived in 2011, yet the development or transition had been so treacherous that democracy was stillborn.
It's true that the "West’s pernicious colonial legacy and wrongheaded policies" had been responsible for tumoil in the region, where modern states were built on ancient civilisations. It was a venue of empire culture and rivalry. Their borders were finalised after WWI and came under British and French rule until they became independent. Unfortunately power-holders couldn't cope with "challenges of modernity". For decades autocrats resort to regime violence "to impose unity on multi-ethnic societies".
No doubt "George W. Bush’s Iraqi enterprise was calamitously ill-conceived", which Mr. Ben-Ami sees as a mistake, as it "cut short the maturation process that major historical changes demand" to achieve democracy, as it was the case in Europe.
Yet it is equally wrong to criticise "Obama’s subsequent failure to leave an adequate residual force in Iraq after the United States withdrew its troops". The decision was right at that time. Nobody had predicted the Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria, which drew the Islamists from Iraq, Europe and America to wage jihad.
"Even if the US never invaded Iraq", the Arab Spring would have caught up with Saddam Hussein and Iraq could have descended into anarchy, with ethnic groups fighting a Lebanon-style civil war. Even if the US had left behind a residual force, it would not have prevented violence from erupting. Sectarian strife broke out in February 2006, while US troops were still there.
The Arab Spring uprisings "are not just about the new Arab generation’s yearning for democracy", but also for a better future. It is not just "minorities", that are frustrated, but the majority of the population - the 99%. Due to youth bulge, young people feel neglected and are not willing to accept social inequalities. Lacking education and having no jobs, they make an explosive bunch.
It's true that Arab leaders are ethnic- and tribal-minded. Following their belief, "blood is thicker than water", they see have incentive to "accommodate religiously diverse societies". and it is "not a problem that a foreign power can resolve". They have to "engage in a long process of trial and error" to write their own history. After all the path to freedom and stability is always tortuous.

Using smart diplomacy actually has been implemented by the West since a long time ago,when they combined hard power and soft power along with their foreign policy objectives. However, smart diplomacy is not the only way to stop the violence and turbulence in Arab. There are several paradox happening in Arab today. Let's see Arab Spring. They are hardly about to combine the democracy and Islam. It seems so inversed with what diversity they hold - where secularism is kind of impossible thing within their demography status.

I think you, as an Israeli former FM, put your finger on the issues arising from Arab Spring - secular liberalization and modernization - which unfortunately misfired because none of the parties directly involved, including US, didn't assert the desired national influence to bring about changes in Arab society from within its citadels. In other words, the West admired the potential implications of Arab Spring but didn't dare take up the argument with the entrenched Wallabies and their like-minded Gulf Emirates.
Bottom line is simply one of liberalization of Islam in 21st century.